Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 159:"Page 3, line 24, leave out ““appears to it to”” and insert ““would””" The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 159, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 162. Both amendments deal with management agreements. Amendment No. 159 is a probing amendment, and I have three questions for the Minister. As the Bill stands, Natural England is not being asked to think hard about the kind of management agreements that it enters into. The only assessment that it will be required to make by law will be whether a management agreement,"““appears to it to further its general purpose””." At first sight, that seems relatively harmless, if not terribly effective. However, the Committee will note that Clause 7(2)(f) states that a management agreement may,"““contain incidental and consequential provision””." If noble Lords then turn to Natural England’s incidental powers in Clause 13, they will see that they include power to,"““acquire or dispose of property [and] borrow money””." Will the Minister give the Committee guidance on whether, although Natural England is being given extensive incidental powers, its attitude in exercising them is expected to be comparatively relaxed? Secondly, surely if Natural England will have the power to impose restrictions on landowners and managers by entering into management agreements, it should have solid reasons for doing so, not only that it should not be required to tell the recipient under which of its various equally ranked purposes it reckons that it is necessary to do so. Thirdly, will a landowner have a great deal of choice on whether to enter into a management agreement? That is slightly different from the issues that we shall discuss on Clause 8 and compulsory purchase orders, but it will be important none the less. Amendment No. 162 would leave out subsection (3) of Clause 7. Our concern is that the subsection will mean that if a farmer enters into a management agreement with Natural England, he might be unable to terminate it in the event that he chose to sell his farm. Here again we appear to be dealing with powers brought forward from previous legislation that, we feel, it is right to question. Even more difficult might be the situation where the owner or farmer unfortunately dies relatively young, leaving a widow and children not old enough to take the farm on. In those circumstances, a management agreement might prove an obstacle to the family achieving the best possible price, should they wish to sell and cease to run the farm. On the other hand, the existence of a management agreement might prove to be an asset in selling the property, but that cannot be known at the moment. There do not appear to be specific references to regulation, guidelines or codes of practice governing the agreements. Moreover, there is nothing in Clause 7 that binds Natural England to a particular code of conduct. Finally, there is nothing to indicate how an agreement may be ended if it proves unsatisfactory to either party. The Minister will wish us to understand that such matters will be dealt with in the normal course of reaching an agreement, but perhaps he can tell us what the current situation is. In the absence of any provision to that effect, we feel that subsection (3) should be removed. I beg to move.